EVENTS

I’m ready to be divisive

I can understand how the strain gets to people. I’m a white guy; I’ve got it easy. I do get a steady stream of hate-mail and vituperative noise in my in-box, but I’ve been getting that for 20 years (usenet gave me a leg up on most of you) and my skin is pretty damned thick by now. But what gets me most right now is shame. Embarrassment at being associated with some of these ‘skeptics’ and atheists — a painful shame at being male. Even the polite ones who think they’re making a rational point make me cringe. Look at this little note from JoeNietzsche:

PZ, you’ve clearly misrepresented the function of his “forms in triplicate” argument. What he is doing there is called exaggeration for effect. No one, not him, his readers or anyone else actually believes this is what anyone at FTB would demand of him. He is simply making the point that obtaining consent would ruin the moment. Social interaction is messy, even the deeply conscientious sort. Now, I had no dog in this fight but this, along with your stream of ad homs, have made up my mind. :(

My nonexistent freakin’ deity. “Obtaining consent would ruin the moment.” For whom? How oblivious can you get?

I can understand why Jen is taking a break. These assholes are exhausting. It’s not just the vileness, it’s the godawful stupidity of people who otherwise claim to be on my side. They aren’t. I’m on the side of humanism, of men and women, for science and the environment, for equality and justice, and I’m against the troglodytes who make excuses for treating women as ambulatory receptacles for their “moment”. Screw ’em.

So one thing we can do is let people cycle back away from the front and take a little R&R, and then those of us still on the line can follow Rebecca Watson’s suggestion: double-down, everyone.

I suspect that if everyone steps up and speaks just as loudly as Jen did, there’s no way the assholes would have enough time in their day to bully all of us. But I get that not everyone can do that. I can do it, though, so until everybody steps up, I’ll just try to be twice as loud in the hopes of acting as some kind of asshole lightning rod.

yeah, there doesn’t seem to be anything worthwhile in reaching out to JoeNietzsche’s. The fifteenth million re iteration of the same arguments aren’t going to get us anywhere. If they haven’t been convinced yet they aren’t going to be.

He is simply making the point that obtaining consent would ruin the moment.

FFS.
How can someone not understand that no one is entitled to someone else’s body?
He really doesn’t think he needs another person’s consent to touch them?
I’ve been in a lot of gay bars over the years, and have encountered a handful of guys who think they have the right to grab my ass as I walk by. The look of utter shock and horror on their faces when I slap their hand away or give them ‘fuck you’ eyes boggles my mind.

****
it’s fucked up that tone trolls wouldn’t have a problem with that pissant’s comment, but *do* have a problem with people using profanity to enhance their message.

As I said on Twitter earlier tonight: on Reddit, r/atheismplus has over 1000 subscribers; r/antiatheismplus has 12. Friends, we are the majority, and we’re winning this fight.

If it ever seems otherwise, it’s only because the trolls and haters are willing to devote bizarrely obsessive amounts of time and energy to punishing people who hold feminist and progressive opinions. Coupled with the easy sockpuppetry that anonymity affords, they make themselves seem more numerous than they are. But the more that A+ grows and makes inroads, the more they’ll recognize the impossibility of harassing all of us into silence, and at that point I think it’s possible they’ll give up and retreat into a sulk.

Now get out there and raise hell! Sally forth, speak up, add your voice, let the world know that these idiot bigots don’t represent you and that you want nothing to do with them. Post something on #atheismplus every day. I, for one, welcome the opportunity to be twice as loud. I’m damn well going to blog about this at every opportunity and pound the shitheads with the heaviest artillery I’ve got, and I’ll do it for as long as it takes to win.

Well, especially since Edwin Kagin has decided this week to invite all of the trolls and harassers to join American Atheists as a protest against basic human decency, we need all the loud voices we can get.

IMHO, the best way to “battle on” is to shut the assholes out of our public dialogue whenever possible, and do our best to create amiable spaces where decent people can speak their minds without a brown deluge of pointless hatred from the worst elements of our society. Seriously, we routinely keep the scumbags our of our homes, and block them from making obscene or harassing phone calls, avoid public places where they’re prominent, and find other public places where they’re kept from bothering anyone. with a good bit of cooperation, and a little technical catching-up, we should be able to do the same in our cyber-spaces.

If it ever seems otherwise, it’s only because the trolls and haters are willing to devote bizarrely obsessive amounts of time and energy to punishing people who hold feminist and progressive opinions.

It would seem that most of the truly unhinged are devoting far more time to hating on A+ and bullying its people than they’ve ever spent on either promoting atheism or criticising religion; those who don’t agree with A+ (for whatever reasons) but who – sensibly – don’t have entitled, authoritarian notions about what other people are allowed to do, on the other hand, are doing what they’ve always done.

If you’re not part of the problem, feeling shame because you happen to share a gender with assholes is unnecessary. Everybody shares their gender with people who are assholes. I’m not ashamed to be a glasses-wearing brunette just because Sarah Palin is a ridiculous person. It doesn’t make me ridiculous by association – that would only be true if I shared her ideas. Tina Fey is also a glasses-wearing brunette. That doesn’t make me hilarious by association, although I do my best.

I know lots of fantastic men, including the regulars here. I never think any less of you because some men elsewhere are clueless assholes, as frustrating as that is. (Not that anyone here needs validation from me.)

The fact that this guy goes out of his way to defend a stupid argument (that got beat down weeks ago) by restating it more baldly/vilely (consent spoils the moment) flat out demonstrates that he does indeed have a dog in the fight.

Meanwhile, an FTB post this morning proclaiming the dropping of rape charges against Julian Assange to be a good thing has apparently been memory-holed. I’m not sure if the charges have actually been dropped but deleting the post is a pretty chicken-shit thing to do. It’s unlikely that it was a good thing for the victim.

Cliff Pervocracy, who I would link to but am unsavvy on my phone, put it thusly: “asking for consent never made anyone not want to sleep with me. It just let me find out they didn’t want to.” (paraphrased). And as said above, when the answer is yes, the moment is definitely enhanced.

As to the rest, Jen’s understandable withdrawal has made me resolve to get louder and more obnoxious.

I think we can start by simply blocking their comments. (I do this already, but I wish more people would.) If every conversation about race were invaded by neo-Nazis or every conversation about gay rights by nasty evangelical homophobes, we wouldn’t accept it. PZ, you’ve banned people, and rightly so, for being Nazis even when they were presenting themselves as “race realists” or whatever. There has to be a misogynist equivalent. I don’t think many of us want to argue with these reactionary assholes. It’s draining, it’s harmful, it doesn’t help us, we don’t want to do it, and we’ve said so.

I understand that some people might think this will shut down debate, and I don’t give a fuck. I don’t want to debate my status as a human being in atheist spaces. Who does?

If shutting down that “debate” results in broad agreement, that’s great. We can move forward. I don’t care what they have to say about this. I don’t want to hear from them on this. I want them to go away or be shut out. That includes Dawkins.* I don’t care if they cry about censorship or free speech or dogmatism or open debate or anything else. The price for participating in our community’s discussions should be not taking bigoted positions, however “civil” your tone.

If bloggers can’t take that step, then commenters will need to develop a strategy that avoids engaging with these people and expresses our collective condemnation.

***

Thank you, Adam Lee.

*And, frankly, he’s more progressive on animal rights than he is on women’s rights, and he still admits that he can’t act according to his convictions with regard to nonhuman animals, so I don’t trust him anyway.

PZ, this is why Atheism+ will never be as popular as it righteously should be. You chose drama over integrity. You could have called him a dumbass for not recognizing that it is worth ruining the moment in order to confirm consent. In fact, the moment may be enhanced by it as many commenters in this thread have mentioned. Instead you chose to focus on the, admittedly poor, wording rather than the intended argument. Clearly his argument was that confirming consent ruins the moment when consent is obvious. It is a shitty argument, but that doesn’t mean you should reply with your own shitty argument. It gives all of Atheism+ the feeling of something you would find on The CW.

Doing stuff to people and not caring about what the person might think about it has always been an asshole move. I think the most common example during parties would be throwing someone to the pool (though this one happens to boys and girls alike). And it’s generally considered more fun if the person struggles and screams.

Teasing first and not doing it if the person objects might ruin the fun for the rest, but hey, there are many more ways to have fun.

Because stopping to call a cab before driving home while hammered would ruin the moment.
Because not posting those naked pictures of yourself from that frat party on your Facebook page would be ruining the moment.
Because pausing to think before sending a e-mail pic of your crotch would be ruining the moment.
Because having to recheck your parachute gear before taking the jump would be ruining the moment.

How many extended sequences of future moments have been ruined for want of not ruining a single moment now?

And wasn’t the defining characteristic of humanity, the thing that’s supposed to set us apart from the apes, our superior ability to think ahead??

No evidence it is just because the man says so. Which is the problem he never adddressed. Nor do you.

You’ve shown before why you’re a bad skeptic. This is why you’re a bad scientist. You’re starting with crazy assumptions and working backwards. You assume that hes advocating going around sexually assaulting people when theres no good reason to think that.

@Mrs. Daisy

Peter, why are you still stealing other people’s valuable oxygen?

omg stop making me feel bad!

@brownian

You can lick my fucking taint, or you can fuck right off, you miserable sycophantic little parasite

I think people can get defensive when you tell them they’re doing things wrong to the point of being intentionally obtuse.

If I may continue with the pool example… it’s a shit thing if you get grabbed and thrown in the pool if you don’t want to. When it happens, most times you go along with it to maintain social peace (ie not ruin the party). But it is shit anyway and the golden rule applies here.

Now, this doesn’t mean it is forbidden to throw people in the pool or that you need a triple certificate or any other exaggeration. This is when people get obtuse and accuse you of being dictatorial and demand detailed explanations of what exact words should be used and what kind of movements should be considered acceptable, as if people were computers and you were describing an algorithm. People don’t work that way. Anyway, not being shit imho involves two steps, and I will describe them in great detail in order to avoid obtuseness.

1. A very simple way to make sure your target is “game” with no physical contact is teasing. Make suggestions, hints, pool jokes… in short, explain what you want to do while maintaining the “fun” tone of the party. Easy enough, right? Simply let him know beforehand.

2. If the response is not enthusiastic, just drop it and change topics. Just like that, start talking about soccer or how shit Bioware games are nowadays or whatever. People will go along with it, we’re very adaptable. Just abort mission. The response needs to be enthusiastic because you don’t want to be shit unintentionally and your target might “accept it” even if he doesn’t want to just to not be a killjoy. If he teases back, he’s game. If he mimics a retreat but then waits for you, he’s game. People talk with their whole body not just the mouth. You need to pick up on that. Each person is different and the possibilities are endless. If you’re not quite sure, play safe and don’t do it. There is plenty to do already, it’s not a big deal anyway, is it? Just leave it at that and do something else. No drama.

Meanwhile, an FTB post this morning proclaiming the dropping of rape charges against Julian Assange to be a good thing has apparently been memory-holed.

You need to give details for a thing like this. You know that.

Yes. But I can’t, because it gone. I was just leaving when I saw it and figured I’d reply when I got where I was going. At which time it wasn’t there any more. I think it was in Ed’s blog, but I’m not even sure of that. At least the poster, whoever it was, realized that it seemed to be saying that the victim was crying rape for political reasons. But I’d have liked to have seen an honest retraction rather than deletion.

Google doesn’t even seem to be able to confirm that the charges have actually been withdrawn.

Geesh, is nohellbelowus *still* riding his stupid “practice” hobbyhorse? ‘Cause, sure, the only difference between an interesting and appealing guy and a rape-joke-spewing internet troll is “practice” at interacting with women. Right.

Oh, okay – thanks for that. I guess Torish isn’t smart enough to realise the an argument dependent on knowing the content of shows on a US television network isn’t going to work too well for an international audience.

I’m on the side of humanism, of men and women, for science and the environment, for equality and justice, and I’m against the troglodytes who make excuses for treating women as ambulatory receptacles for their “moment”. Screw ‘em.

some of these assholes show a greater level of obsession than Dennis Markuze.

Yeah, I have noticed that about the Egate crowd. They pop up everywhere, and not just on FtB, pasting the same stuff (Ctrl C and Ctrl V must be their two favorite keys), under threads that have the barest whiff of feminism or FtB or the like.
The pure inexhaustible obsession over RW and the FtB bullies. They are the Energizer bunnies of self-righteous outrage and misogynous hatred.

Oh, okay – thanks for that. I guess Torish isn’t smart enough to realise the an argument dependent on knowing the content of shows on a US television network isn’t going to work too well for an international audience.

And even if the reference was clear, what kind of fucking chucklehead thinks this way?

PZ, this is why Atheism+ will never be as popular as it righteously should be. You chose drama over integrity. You could have called him a dumbass for not recognizing that it is worth ruining the moment in order to confirm consent. In fact, the moment may be enhanced by it as many commenters in this thread have mentioned. Instead you chose to focus on the, admittedly poor, wording rather than the intended argument. Clearly his argument was that confirming consent ruins the moment when consent is obvious. It is a shitty argument, but that doesn’t mean you should reply with your own shitty argument. It gives all of Atheism+ the feeling of something you would find on Veronica Mars.

Ibyea, for the third season, the CW demanded that Rob Thomas not do a season long arc. The helped to create the very disjointed season. That and dragging the Veronica/Logan break up/make up beyond tolerance. Though I did not care much for Piz.

It was cancelled in the middle of the third season, right after Sheriff Lamb was killed. So there was no chance to explore the ramifications of that event. The show had to be wrapped up. But like Joss Whedon with Angel when it was ended while still viable, they did a great job giving the show a very appropriate ending.

When VM went on hiatus, the Pussycat Dolls ran in it’s spot and got better ratings.

Do any of you people realize how mind-knumbingly boring and plain senseless most of your posts are to those of us who haven’t been following whatever issue you are debating on a daily basis like apparently most of you have been? Context people. It’s as if you all have been locked in an echo chamber inventing your own language. 91 comments and I haven’t a fucking clue what you are all yammering about, but it sure seems important to most of you. More clarity, less in-jokes please.

Why, yes, scienceavenger, we must rehash everything for the sake of you every time this topic comes up. It would be just too much trouble for you to explore the content of these blogs in order to know what the argument is about.

You could search “atheism +”. You could search “Rebecca Watson and elevatorguy”. You could go to Blag Hag, B & W or Almost Diamonds.

But why bother when you could tell us just how mind bendingly boring we are.

Right, because someone reading a blog needs to do research to know what you people are talking about. Real PR masters you are. Keep blabbing to yourselves, I’m sure it’ll make you feel so righteous and important, which apparently you need more than making whatever point you are so fired up about clear to potential allies.

Well, let’s see. First the earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di’s clothes. I couldn’t believe it…

Yes Janine, when making a post on a publiv forum, you ought to make clear what the fuck you are talking about.

And you make it very clear you don’t understand how things operate here. Your OPINION of how it should operate is meaningless compared to PZ’s desire/opinion on how it operates. Check the masthead to see who is in charge. I don’t see your ‘nym…You were taught commentariat 090, not even beginner level.

Do any of you people realize how mind-knumbingly boring and plain senseless most of your posts are to those of us who haven’t been following whatever issue you are debating on a daily basis like apparently most of you have been?

Have you considered the remote possibility that some of these posts were not, you know, addressed to you and you alone? and some of them are part of ongoing conversations between people who have been talking to each other about these issues for a long time?

(Hint: Itsnotaboutjustyouitsnotaboutjustyouitsnotaboutjustyou)

Right, because someone reading a blog needs to do research to know what you people are talking about.

Someone new entering a long-running conversation ought to have enough common courtesy to do some self-education, and not demand that everyone stop mid-sentence to bring him up to speed.

Gee wowbagger, I note that you are wasting time and you accuse me of same? Get your debating skills from 10 year olds do you?

No, you moaned that we were wasting your time by having a conversation you couldn’t comprehend and were too lazy and/or incompetent to investigate, preferring to have your knowledge spoon-fed to you; I, on the other hand, pointed out you were wasting even more time complaining when you could have been fucking off to somewhere that catered to whatever the fuck it is you’re demanding that PZ and the posters here should be talking about.

Given your performance here I’d guess that the average 10 year old would be fucking Einstein compared to you, pissant.

Do any of you people realize how mind-knumbingly boring and plain senseless most of your posts are to those of us who haven’t been following whatever issue you are debating on a daily basis like apparently most of you have been? Context people. It’s as if you all have been locked in an echo chamber inventing your own language. 91 comments and I haven’t a fucking clue what you are all yammering about, but it sure seems important to most of you. More clarity, less in-jokes please.

If shutting down that “debate” results in broad agreement, that’s great. We can move forward. I don’t care what they have to say about this. I don’t want to hear from them on this. I want them to go away or be shut out.

More to the point, we don’t HAVE to hear from them. We’ve already heard plenty from them, and we’ve pretty clearly established that they have nothing useful or constructive to contribute, so we can flat-out exclude them and thereby improve our public discourse, for the same reason we don’t invite obnoxious sloppy drunks to our parties, and kick out people who become sloppy obnoxious drunks. It’s not a “free speech” issue, it’s a “right to peaceful assembly” issue.

Yes Janine, when making a post on a publiv forum, you ought to make clear what the fuck you are talking about.

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you just want to fucking whine, or do you honestly want to fucking understand what people are talking about? Do you know how to ask fucking questions, or do we need to hold your fucking hand through that too?

More to the point, we don’t HAVE to hear from them. We’ve already heard plenty from them, and we’ve pretty clearly established that they have nothing useful or constructive to contribute, so we can flat-out exclude them and thereby improve our public discourse, for the same reason we don’t invite obnoxious sloppy drunks to our parties, and kick out people who become sloppy obnoxious drunks. It’s not a “free speech” issue, it’s a “right to peaceful assembly” issue.

Exactly. These people have indicated that they clearly aren’t interested in/capable of discourse because they will not change their minds; they only demand to be included so they can act in negative ways and waste people’s time and energy.

Fuck that shit. If, as they claim, they are genuinely interested in the same goals as A+, they’ll go about it in the way they see is best and leave us the fuck alone. But this constant harassment of the people involved is indicating that that really isn’t the case.

I saw that post. The reason it disappeared is probably because the article linked was dated 2010, so the post mistakenly referred to an arrest warrant for Assange that was canceled in 2010 as having been canceled in 2012. There has been no new development in the Assange case, as far as I know. As a result, the post was very misleading (and it was also off-topic).

I can only assume those who think that obtaining consent would “ruin the moment” believe that consent requires a detailed clinical description of the act being proposed. Of course, unless you’re not human or were raise by wolves, that kind of detail is pretty much entirely unnecessary. That’s pretty much the only way “forms in triplicate” could ever make for a convincing mocking escalation of the real concept, while real consent doesn’t even necessarily involve a single spoken word sometimes.

So we have people arguing against a concept they don’t even understand. How depressingly typical.

To set the record straight: I was a bit confused about what you were saying. I did not see any post by Ed, or any other FTBlogger. There could have been one, but I didn’t see it.

What I saw was a comment by Raging Bee which featured a link to the 2010 BBC article. I thought this was what you were talking about, but apparently you saw something else.

FWIW, the article is quite effective at making one think it is current. (unintentionally, of course). I think I realized that something was wrong only 3/4 of the way through, when I got to a sentence that said something like “The whereabouts of Mr. Assange are currently unknown.”
If Ed, or someone else, was fooled for a moment, I wouldn’t be surprised.

Right, because someone reading a blog needs to do research to know what you people are talking about. Real PR masters you are. Keep blabbing to yourselves, I’m sure it’ll make you feel so righteous and important, which apparently you need more than making whatever point you are so fired up about clear to potential allies.

You must not have much experience reading blogs.
It is not the job of the commenters to explain themselves to people who pop in and cannot follow the conversation.

The way you strolled in here trying to dictate how you want things done is also not the way a potential ally would act.

If you were trying to be an honest contributor, ideally you’d read the links PZ provided.
Barring that, if you had asked politely for someone to point you in the direction necessary to understand the history of the discussion, you might have had more success learning what people are talking about.

Instead you arrogantly demand that the commenters bow to your desires and then try to act self righteous when you get called out for your arrogance.
Nice.

Yes, because if she said “no”, the moment would be over. How are poor guys ever going to have some fun if they’re supposed not to assault somebody?

peterhearn

The guy was arguing thunderf00t’s point. When thunderf00t made that point he was obviously making the assumption that both parties were consensual.

No shit, Sherlock.
SSo, guy assumes that she consents, because he totally does, skips the point where he actually confirms his assumption by giving her a chance to do so and goes on to do what he wants to do anyway.
You know what that means?
If he was right he was just lucky. If he was wrong, he just sexually assaulted somebody.

I don’t think in his mind anything he said would get him kicked off. I bet he thought he could say whatever he wanted with impunity. He probably thought he could sway everyone with his reasoning.

So, he assumed things again? Looks like he was wrong. So, what does that tell us? Oh, look back at the thing above: Assuming that things are like that ain’t make them so.
Oh, and before you go on with your Dolchstoßlegende:
He wasn’t kicked because he voiced a dissenting opinion. People here disagree fairly often.
He was kicked because his writing wasn’t only pretty shitty, but a sole continuous shitting on the carpet.

You assume that hes advocating going around sexually assaulting people when theres no good reason to think that.

Wrong. As shown above. Your failure to understand makes you creepy.

Torish

Clearly his argument was that confirming consent ruins the moment when consent is obvious

Two words: Rebecca Watson
She ruins everything and apparently she rubs off. Last I heard were people discussing blue hairdye.

scienceavenger

Right, because someone reading a blog needs to do research to know what you people are talking about.

Yes, why do you suppose we’re obliged to spoon-feed you anything.
Entitlement, thy name is scienceavenger. You are not entitled to our fucking time, we have no obligation to stop what we’Re doing and do your homework. You’re interupting two scientists talking about a highly complicated subject and demand that they stop it and tell you all about organic chemistry 101 NOW *stomp foot*

I’m sure it’ll make you feel so righteous and important, which apparently you need more than making whatever point you are so fired up about clear to potential allies.

I have no interest in “allies” who’re only in for the cookies and being treated nicely because they’ll just turn around and stab me in the back as soon as the cookie delivery is late or I say “fuck”. Either people are with me because they agree with what is good and right or they’re not.

Many years ago, shortly after the dinosaurs died out, I went to a party where I met a guy. He was funny, nice, interesting, in short we had a good time chatting and laughing and drinking and yes, I was interested in him.
And you know what totally ruined the moment?
When he tried to push his tongue down my throat.
At least he afterwards apologized, saying he’d thought I wanted to kiss him, too.
I spent the rest of the evening at a distance from him.
Anybody see a parallel?

And it’s generally considered more fun if the person struggles and screams.

And now guess which gender is more likely to be that, especially if the wet clothes would then allow for some free porn.

Given my own personal experience with this kind of situation, I actually thought jose’s analogy was a pretty good one. My undergrad school had a fairly elaborate set of traditions involving throwing people in ponds and suchlike, and because of the thoughtful way it was set up there was probably actually a fairly good gender balance in who was targeted for such hijinks, and it was generally pretty non-skeezy, unlike what one might maybe expect to happen in a party situation.

To begin with, “ponding” was for the most part a “punishment” for breaking whatever silly rules happened to be in place in a particular dorm, so to even be at risk of ponding, one had to go out of one’s way to break the rules, thus giving a level of implied consent to the process. And even after that, there were fairly stringent restrictions on how it could be done, so that if somebody genuinely objected to being ponded, they wouldn’t be. On the other hand, for those who *were* willing to participate, the whole fun of it was to make it as difficult for the people trying to pond you as possible (without anyone getting hurt, of course), so this sorta macho, competitive element meant that men were both more likely to be targeted and more likely to consent. There were also specific rules in place to keep things from getting creepy, such as no more than one man being allowed to participate in ponding a woman. (I and some of the other larger and more physically aggressive women would tend to waive that one as a matter of practicality, but there was no pressure to do so.)

So I think it’s actually a pretty good comparison to the flirting/mating situations being discussed here — if it’s not well thought out, and consent isn’t carefully obtained, it can get pretty creepy and abusive, but within a community that’s committed to protecting people and ensuring consent, it’s actually a hell of a lot of fun.

I think I’ll break out my wheelchair and don the nym of Mad Hamish. Whut?

That made my night.

@ 35

Salty wrote

I understand that some people might think this will shut down debate, and I don’t give a fuck. I don’t want to debate my status as a human being in atheist spaces.

Exactly. I don’t think there’s anything to debate. It is maddening. I guess expecting people to treat each other basic human dignity and—- oh fuck, I really don’t get what there is to even talk about when someone says “hey, getting consent is a great idea” or “hey, stop harassing women,” or “hey, attacking a person because of their sexuality, sex, gender, race is bad, knock it off.”

It is almost like there’s a group of privileged assholes screaming that some of their shittier privileges are being eroded.

But then every single person I’ve had sex with has wanted to (enthusiastically, there’s no accounting for taste I guess!) have sex with me. I know because I made sure. And I pride myself on both my left and right hands being perfectly satisfied participants! ;-)

Have these people never had sex with someone who enthusiastically WANTS to have sex with them? It’s easy to tell, you just ask, you don’t have to have them initial a contract of fuckage.

“I want you so much I’m in physical pain, you feel the same, right?”

“FUCK YEAH!!!!”

THIS! THIS ruins the moment? Sorry but when that happens to me that IS the moment! I can get my own rocks off in a darkened room with one hand tied behind my back, but as the Cheap Trick song says “I want you to want me”. THAT’S the best bit! That’s boner doubling goodness.

Like the creationists etc who should be banned from access to science, these pissants should be banned from access to sex, any sex. (Strictly for comedy purposes, referring to that fictional piece of comedy in Nature, not in any serious sense. Obviously, really, do I need to,…{sigh} yes I do don’t I)

This is well and good, except for the fact that tf00t was talking specifically about horseplay in a bar, and not about consent to sex.

Consent doesn’t begin and end with sex.

Someone who who doesn’t seek consent for horseplay – because they think that they can magically determine whether or not their target is freely willing – may be similarly confused when it comes to seeking consent for sex.

This argument was never about the understanding which might exist between intimates, by the way.

…some of these assholes show a greater level of obsession than Dennis Markuze.

Anne c. Hanna
Oh, i didn’t think that josé’s analogy was bad, but I wanted to point out that it’s usually not gender-neutral. To cross women’s borders, to disrespect their right to say no and to teach them that yes, they’re physically weaker is usually much more common and “funnier” than to do so with men.
A girl who starts crying afterwards, well that is hilarious (remember all those people who told Jen and Amy that if it made them cry then it meant they were just silly and the attackers were right?).
I remember being thrown into a pond during a school-project in my final high-school year. And afterwards the guys who did it and who were there by car were absolutely unwilling to drive me home and insisted I should take the bus. And when I called my mum she told me that if I was so stupid to get thrown into a pond she wasn’t going to drop what she’d been doing to pick me up.
The guys showed some reluctant decency when I started to cry.

So one thing we can do is let people cycle back away from the front and take a little R&R

That! Exactly that.

Regardless of whether they are a minority or not, there are enough of them to spew BS like that on a regular basis, causing stress to all/most of the relatively small roster of visible bloggers who decry the harmful stupidity.

And it doesn’t let up, ever. And it probably won’t for a good long time.

So it is not surprising that some will be weary, especially those that are part of marginalised groups as it is a lot more personal.

It’s easy for me to decry racism and be called epithets by a white supremacist or being told that I’m being PC by a white person being oblivious that the shit they said has racist undertones and pissed off at me that I pointed it out to them.

It’s a different feeling than for somebody who will know that even non-overtly racist people can sustain racism with stupid jokes or attitudes and be pissed off when it is pointed out to them, pissed off that the non-racism they believe they possess and is pure of defect has been shown to have a crack, or a big hole in it (as the case may be).

Because it is well known that being accused of not being a perfect non-racist is a lot worst than any racist thing you might have said.

It’s a whole different situation for somebody who will have to live knowing that there are people who actively hate them for something that not only they have no control over but is not even a bad thing in the first place, merely different.

And knowing that the former will provide unwitting (being generous) cover to the latter.

And while I have used a racial context here (because I think it is less polarising in our community than the gender one at the moment) it applies equally well to gender and misogyny (or sexism, regardless of what you want to call it we need to get rid of it all the same), to sexuality and homophobia…

It works slightly differently for transsexuals and disabled people in that where I have no desire to change a person’s skin color or sexual tastes (anybody tells you gayness is a choice? Ask them what dish they find most repulsive and to choose to love it) or hair color (hi Tim), if I had the possibility (both technical and financial) to offer a blind person to (re)gain vision, to grow an amputee a new limb, to undo the damage of a person suffering from ALS, to have SRS… then I would offer it to them.

So, yeah, human beings need holidays. And it might be a good idea to have the various bloggers (and prominent commenters, I’m thinking of some poster’s weariness in a thread a few weeks ago) come together to schedule times when they don’t engage with such issues while knowing that others are holding the fort.

Living in Europe, I’ll add that a big reason why I often just lurk is that by the time I have seen the story and read the comments, everything I wanted to say has already been said by others with more succintness (look at the length of this post), thoroughness and style than I would have.

I think I need to change tactics. Instead of reading all the comments, I think that when I find an obectionable comment I need to read only that commenter’s further comments in that thread and see if he already addresses what I was going to point out. If he did, then address his rebuttal, if he didn’t then point out what I was going to point out given that even if another commenter already did point it out he obviously either didn’t see it (so more fingers pointing to it is useful) or is ignoring it (so more fingers pointing to it is useful to show lurkers what he is doing his best to avoid contending with).

tl;dr: Holidays GOOD. Am trying to get more engaged so that the heat is distributed over more commenters but they are So! Damn! Fast!.

except for the fact that tf00t was talking specifically about horseplay in a bar, and not about consent to sex.

So I don’t need consent to touch someone in a bar? Good to know. What bars do you hang out in? I feel like repeatedly punching someone in the face for funsies and, since you just told me that horseplay in a bar doesn’t need consent, it will be okay to repeactedly punch you. After all, it’s just horseplay. Just fun! And you don’t want to ruin the moment, do you.

Going back to the “assumed”
Some of the most horrible fights I witnessed between my parents was when they both assumed that they agreed (complete with elliptical sentences that left out exactly the part that would turn out to be the misunderstanding) until the point when they found out they didn’t.
I hope that never happened to them in the bedroom.

I remember, many moons ago, when my wife had some guy come up behind her in a night club and jiggle her tits by reaching around her. This caused her to drop her third dropped-due-to-jostling pint of the evening (so she was in a mood). She turned around and decked the guy. She didn’t know him, he was just fooling about, trying to pick my wife up (I guess he didn’t realise she was with anyone).

Obviously this is A-OK with our “funster” chums. I wonder, when I (and some equally large friends) came to my wife’s aid (not that she needed much, the guy had hit the floor and bounced on his arse, The Mrs has something of a right hook) if we should have cheerily beaten the living shit out of him, instead of smiling broadly and encouraging him to be elsewhere through non-violent means. After all, we’d have been laughing whilst we did it, which means it’s, like, totally just for fun and everything, right? Totes Okay because it’s all just a bit of friendly horseplay. After all when I was playing rugby I used to punch the opposition on occasion and we’d all have a drink and a laugh about it later. Not only that when I do Kung Fu we smack each other all the time and laugh about it. So this sort of thing MUST be fun right?

Excellent! I look forward to meeting some of these “funsters” in a bar for a wee bit of horseplay.

Whaddya mean that’s not funny?

Awwww come on…just one little headlock? Killjoy!

Louis

P.S. See this video for an understanding at what I am (badly) imitating here. For some this sort of satire won’t be appropriate, but sorry, I think it is. So tough.

My bad, we’re STILL talking about tfoot and horseplay? I thought this conversation had moved on to being about sex and more general topics.

This is the scab that PZ Myers has decided to pick, lets stick to that instead of tilting at windmills. Tf00t for all his flaws wasn’t arguing about the need to obtain consent for sex.

Either way don’t you think obtaining consent for any physical activity involving others is a good thing?

To answer your question – I don’t think that its a necessarily bad thing. I think this comes down to whether or not you accept that consent can ever be implied.

Lets take two scenarios bearing in mind that both might be considered an exaggeration of the actual “event” in question.

1. You’ve been out drinking with a group of friends, you think the girl sitting next to you might be flirting with you, you’ve been talking for hours and she laughs at all your bad jokes, she gives you a few playful taps on the shoulder. She smiles. She squeezes your leg. You decide, not to rape her or move in for a kiss but to playfully grab her leg and pretend to bite it.

2. You’ve been out drinking with a group of friends, you see a girl across the room that you’ve never spoken to before. You decide to go up behind her and jiggle her tits.

Amazing though it might seem, I’m not actually interested in discussing the tfoot thing, it’s been done to death here and before. No one has any objection to horseplay between intimates/friends where consent is implied/well understood.

I am also not remotely concerned about what you think PZ is doing, if the multitude of replies on the wider topic on this thread don’t convince you that this discussion is not restricted to Thunderfoot, I can’t help you.

1. You’ve been out drinking with a group of friends, you think the girl sitting next to you might be flirting with you, you’ve been talking for hours and she laughs at all your bad jokes, she gives you a few playful taps on the shoulder. She smiles. She squeezes your leg.

Unproven assumptions you’re just making up to support your narative. Also known as “lying for Thunderfoot”. It still doesn’t indicate that she’d like to have her leg chewed on. You’re basically saying that as long as you just assault her a little it’s ok.

You decide, not to rape her or move in for a kiss

Any dude who needs to consciously decide not to rape somebody should probably be kept away from people just like people who need to consciously refrain from murdering people should.

2. You’ve been out drinking with a group of friends, you see a girl across the room that you’ve never spoken to before. You decide to go up behind her and jiggle her tits.

So, because worse assault happens, and because situations happen in which nibbling a leg can be great fun for both parties this makes a point how exactly?

No one has any objection to horseplay between intimates/friends where consent is implied/well understood.

Oh please, you amongst others have been setting up false equivalences throughout this thread. The general gist being that if the emailer agrees with tf00ts point about horseplay he must also agree with your ridiculous scenarios about tit jiggling, hitting people or whatever else.

Unproven assumptions you’re just making up to support your narative. Also known as “lying for Thunderfoot”. It still doesn’t indicate that she’d like to have her leg chewed on. You’re basically saying that as long as you just assault her a little it’s ok.

I find it interesting that you chose to cut out this:

Lets take two scenarios bearing in mind that both might be considered an exaggeration of the actual “event” in question.

The two scenarios have been deliberately exaggerated in order to make a point about implied consent, and this was explicitly made clear.

The general gist being that if the emailer agrees with tf00ts point about horseplay he must also agree with your ridiculous scenarios about tit jiggling, hitting people or whatever else.

Have you forgotten the context in which Thunderf00t himself introduced the leg thing?

The discussion had never, ever been about what people do with intimates, and always to do with dangerous assumptions about the consent of mere friends or strangers. It was about harassment, and that was the context into which Thunderf00t interjected his opinion.

If Thunderf00t thought that anyone was trying to to stop him doing something that he could reasonably presume consent for (because it involved the subtle communication of intimates) then he was wrong and also being irrelevant. (Although, clearly, the presumption of consent even in those cases comes with various qualifiers.)

So the general gist being about horseplay is simply a distraction from what was written, that obtaining consent would ruin the moment. Just because we sometimes communicate consent differently in intimate, familiar relationships, doesn’t mean that consent is not sought or obtained. The idea that one doesn’t bother to consider consent, which is what that wording implies, is a very, very dangerous one.

Losing what? I’m not talking about the same thing you are! We are talking about different things, there is no mutual reference of discussion, and if there were I wasn’t aware that discussion was a competition!

You know what the difference is between grabbing a woman’s leg after she’s been flirting with you and pretending to bite it and walking up to a stranger and grabbing her breasts?

Not that much.

Both cases presume that because one party thinks that something is a good idea, that the other party will as well. Both cases presume that one party’s amusement outweighs the other’s right to not be grabbed.

The general gist being that if the emailer agrees with tf00ts point about horseplay he must also agree with your ridiculous scenarios about tit jiggling, hitting people or whatever else.

is a straw man. I do not claim or think this.

My original comment in this thread was about what I thought was the continuation of a theme already in the thread, i.e. “obtaining consent ruins the moment” when in a sexual situation, or situation likely to lead to sex. The thread had already “gone there”, from about comment #2.

Go back to my #147. How much clearer could I be that I am not talking about Tfoot. Do you need this tattooed on you somewhere? I don’t think the Tfoot scenario and anything I have commented on are remotely equivalent. I said “My bad” because if I had made the mistake of not noticing that people were talking about Tfoot and I’d gotten the wrong end of the stick, very possible, I wasn’t talking about Tfoot. I don’t care about Tfoot. I care about the problematic attitude underpinning “obtaining consent ruins the moment” as it is abused in wider contexts. Again, no one, least of all me, has any sort of problem with horseplay between intimates. Do you grasp this yet?

Lets take two scenarios bearing in mind that both might be considered an exaggeration of the actual “event” in question.

The two scenarios have been deliberately exaggerated in order to make a point about implied consent, and this was explicitly made clear.

Since you’re stuck on your rut of attacking that straw dummy, I draw your attention to the actual “scab that PZ Myers has decided to pick” (to use your own idiom) by quoting from the OP:
“But what gets me most right now is shame. Embarrassment at being associated with some of these ‘skeptics’ and atheists — a painful shame at being male. Even the polite ones who think they’re making a rational point make me cringe.”

The two scenarios have been deliberately exaggerated in order to make a point about implied consent, and this was explicitly made clear.

Not really, because your first scenario, although you made the story as much about “implied consent” as your brain allowed you to, you still failed and your second scenario was a completely different one.

My original comment in this thread was about what I thought was the continuation of a theme already in the thread, i.e. “obtaining consent ruins the moment” when in a sexual situation, or situation likely to lead to sex. The thread had already “gone there”, from about comment #2.

Then you are either a poor reader or you wanted to talk about the wider issue of consent, or both. I also want to talk about the wider issue of consent and have been doing so since you mentioned that you didn’t think this was entirely about thunderf00t.

You’ve been out drinking with a group of friends, you think the girl sitting next to you might be flirting with you,…

She might be, I consider that a possibility, but I’m clearly unsure.

…you’ve been talking for hours and she laughs at all your bad jokes,…

Like all of the other polite people I’m sitting with who humour me because that is what people often do in social situations. I’m still none the wiser as to whether she is flirting, but perhaps I like the idea that she is, or perhaps it makes me uncomfortable, which either way is why I’m considering it.

…she gives you a few playful taps on the shoulder.

Because she is physically demonstrative. As are many people, many of whom I don’t find attractive, and therefore don’t spend too much time wishfully thinking that a mere tap on the should is otherwise meaningful. I’m trying to to read her mind. And failing.

She smiles. She squeezes your leg.

She smiles, because she is enjoying social interaction. She is physically demonstrative, but I already know this. However, her intentions are unclear, and she clearly doesn’t recognise my personal boundaries as well as she should.

You decide, not to rape her…

Because I’m not a raging monster.

…or move in for a kiss…

Because I’m not a horny teenager in a movie and I understand how appropriate social interactions work.

…but to playfully grab her leg and pretend to bite it.

Because I’ve just decided that my need to make a joke or to attempt to escalate the physicality (for my own selfish reasons) is more important than maintaining that demeanour of appropriateness I previously adopted. I’m actually selfishly given to physically inflicting myself on others.

You did, and sounded incoherent in doing so. That’s because you fail to understand the concept of a woman’s bodily integrity. Hence, why you need explicit permission before touching or it is assault, sexual or otherwise.

Because I’ve just decided that my need to make a joke or to attempt to escalate the physicality (for my own selfish reasons) is more important than maintaining that demeanour of appropriateness I previously adopted. I’m actually selfishly given to physically inflicting myself on others.

Discounting the possibility that intaking alcohol serves to lower the inhibitions of everyone involved this is exactly right. We do live in societies where men bear the responsibility of making a move when women give reasonable signals that they’d like a move to be made. How this is equivalent to assault or harassment is beyond me.

Okay, you’re talking out of your arse and trolling. Or simply put: lying.

I first posted at #139 making a very obviously general point, within the extended theme of the thread, about the problems of this attitude that “obtaining consent ruins the moment” in a non-specific sexual context. No mention of Thunderfoot. None.

You replied at #141 saying that my #139 was a straw man of Thunderfoot’s point. Which would be true if I had been talking about Thunderfoot, which I wasn’t. As I pointed out in my #147, quite explicitly.

You replied in #151 with:

This is the scab that PZ Myers has decided to pick, lets stick to that instead of tilting at windmills. Tf00t for all his flaws wasn’t arguing about the need to obtain consent for sex.

I’m not responsible for PZ, or anyone, including you and your misinterpretations/misrepresentations. I had twice made it clear I was talking about a general point, not anything to do with Thunderfoot. I made this even more abundantly clear in #152 with:

Amazing though it might seem, I’m not actually interested in discussing the tfoot thing, it’s been done to death here and before. No one has any objection to horseplay between intimates/friends where consent is implied/well understood.

I am also not remotely concerned about what you think PZ is doing, if the multitude of replies on the wider topic on this thread don’t convince you that this discussion is not restricted to Thunderfoot, I can’t help you.

How much more explicit can I be?

You replied in #154 with:

Oh please, you amongst others have been setting up false equivalences throughout this thread. The general gist being that if the emailer agrees with tf00ts point about horseplay he must also agree with your ridiculous scenarios about tit jiggling, hitting people or whatever else.

Throughout the thread forsooth?! I haven’t posted on the thread until #139. Late in the day (at the current time) don’t you think. Your misunderstanding is your own, not anyone else’s.

And yet again you focus on Thunderfoot after I explicitly stated that I wasn’t referring to him twice, and that no one, least of all me has a problem with horseplay between intimates (whether you believe it or not).

So I replied at #158 with a rude and blunt and very, very simple and explicit statement that I have not been talking about Thunderfoot. And here you are back in #167 claiming that you’re talking about the wider context and not Thunderfoot.

Let’s run through that again:

1) I comment on the general problem with the attitude “obtaining consent ruins the moment”.

2) You tell me I am strawmanning Thunderfoot despite the fact that I haven’t mentioned him.

3) I tell you I am not commenting about Thunderfoot.

4) You tell me I am commenting about Thunderfoot and should be because PZ apparently is (he isn’t, but, whatever even if he is the thread had moved on to more general topics).

5) I tell you that not only am I not commenting about Thunderfoot, but that I am not interested in commenting about Thunderfoot. He’s a red herring. No one has any objection to horseplay between intimates, if that’s even relevant to what I was discussing, which it isn’t.

6) You’re back with Thunderfoot AGAIN.

7) I hop up and down waving a “I do not care about Thunderfoot” banner and you still don’t get it.

Yeah, it’s you that’s moved the conversation on to topic other than Thunderfoot [/sarcasm].

You’ve touched someone who didn’t want to be touched. Sure, that’s sort of mild, as things go. But is it more mild than the entitled ability to touch her in the first place before making sure it was ok? Nope. It is a trivial, miniscule thing to do in terms of emotional and physical effort to be sure that someone wants your advances first, much more trivial than dealing with the “ugh” feeling and subsequent need to figure out how to tell this guy to back the hell off without making him angry enough to cause a scene and/or resort to violence (which is a much more common result than most guys realize).

So yeah, she’s not made of glass. Neither are you. It won’t crush your manhood to find out first if she wants you to touch her, so why do you insist on putting the onus on her to tell you to stop after you’ve had your fun rather than keeping it on yourself to find out first if she wants you to start?

So, if I don’t leave marks it doesn’t count as assault? If I grab a leg, it isn’t assault? Is that because you don’t consider them to be sexual? (Presumably, you would recognise the assault if I moved a few inches up the leg?)

I’ve laid my hands on her when she didn’t want to be touched (by me). I have committed an assault. I have crossed a boundary that I have no right to challenge.

That is a very interesting interpretation of events Louis. The lengths that people will go to in order to avoid the matter, eh? If you bear in mind that i’m using thunderf00ts experience at a bar as an example, counter to your “jiggling tits” example that it really starts to resemble reality. Of course the issue of implied consent is a difficult one, I can understand why you’d rather argue against mythical creatures who do not think that any type of consent is required for sexual intercourse.

We do live in societies where men bear the responsibility of making a move when women give reasonable signals that they’d like a move to be made.

Oh fuck, not this shit again.

Look, poiquoi, if T-fuck was talking about horseplay as a reason to not have anti-harassment at cons (and, let’s be honest, nobody really knows because the guy is a barely literate fuckwit), then his whole point was an exercise in irrelevancies and goal-post moving.

Human word talks are not my first language so enlighten me, what do you call an ally who ignores a call to arms? What do you call one who responds by joining the other side?

The leg chewing thing is just bizzare…I don’t know why people keep bringing it up like its actually a thing.

The “ruin the mood” people apparently suck so much at the arts of Eros that they think they need all the stars aligned in exqctly the right way with all dominos lined up perfectly to luck into getting laid. Sex isn’t something someone does with them, its something they win after long negotiation or trickery and can disapear in an instant if the wind changes….like a used car sale

I must admit that I, too, am kind of wary of the “implied consent between intimates with your own sekrit body language” thing. That is fine if you are very very sure that you are both very very sure that you are actually on the same page and have previously communicated (preferably using real communication, not your own assumptions for how these social scripts are “supposed” to “progress” and “everybody knows” that) both what implies consent and what the fuck you expect the other person to do if they don’t consent.

I have an ex who had, like… his own complete set of expectations about how stuff “obviously” works between people who are in a relationship that he never fucking told me about, except to occasionally yell at me for doing it wrong. He had his own set of things that he considered it reasonable that I might say no to and what I obviously could not really be objecting to; I even now only have an educated guess as to what his criteria actually were, after going through a year of it. When he would decide that now we were cute play-fighting and I was clearly only giving coy token resistance and teasing… well, that was what he decided was obvious, so that’s what was happening. We didn’t have a safeword or anything because we weren’t like those weird BDSM people with their being in any way different from my ex and therefore inferior (he was a bit of a narcissistic douchebag). If there was a particular way he expected me to communicate that I wanted him to stop if I “actually” wanted him to stop, I never figured out what it was. What I learned was that all attempts to get him to stop short of punching him in the nose and calling the cops on his self-centered ass (which I probably should have done, but I was having major cognitive dissonance trying to recognize what was actually happening to me–I couldn’t possibly be in an abusive relationship with a creepy rapist! I was so fucking careful and picky!) were taken as clearly, obviously, and objectively just part of the cute play fighting, and he would pout and laugh and continue doing whatever to me. I learned that if I stopped trying to get him to stop and just let him do his thing to me then it would take less time to get it over with than if I prolonged the scene by participating, where by “participating” I mean “telling him to stop and trying to push him away.”

So yeah, you can take “implied consent” and shove that, too. “Implied consent” means fucking NOTHING other than “But I want there to be consent, so I will pretend it is obvious instead of actually fucking obtaining it.”

If for some reason you are really ridiculously committed to not using your words in order not to ruin the moment, move really really really cheesy-slo-mo FUCKING SLOWLY and give the other person lots and lots of time to move away. If they move away so much as a fucking millimeter, STOP. Any fucking questions?

(PS. Hi, horde! I am new. Been lurking for several months. Sorry my first comment here had to be heavy shit; this thread was making me fucking ill.)

Anything to do with TF is irrelevant. You know that. Hypotheticals are also irrelevant, unless you look at all the underlying presumptions, including male privilege, boyz will be boyz idiocy, women ask for it, etc. All sexist paradigms, designed to keep women treated as less than equals.

Buyers and sellers, man. It’s the transactional model of sex, where sex is a commodity, much like a used car (remember the BMW ads that compared used BMWs to a woman for whom “it’s not her first time”?). Women have it, men want it, therefore men have to find something women want to trade for it because women don’t participate in sex out of passion, just to get stuff. Tricking a woman into giving it to you is like getting a good price. Etc., etc.

FUCK YOU for implying that women who get mad when you touch them without permission are made of glass.

Word.

“I may do anything I like to you until you say stop because that is the line between your desire and mine. There can be no other explanation”.

It couldn’t be that there’s a welter of social factors that might also play into that scenario and that people are organisms with a history who might have a variety of reasons for ostensibly similar behaviours…

Nah, that couldn’t be relevant.

Louis

P.S. Why just the other day we were very superficially and briefly discussing the differences between UK eyes falling on a sign saying “Middle Class First” and USA eyes falling on that same sign. It’s like there’s all these different social and cultural factors that apply differently to different people and stuff. And that maybe, juuuuuuuuuuuuuust maybe, part of being a grown up and demonstrating your respect for other people in general is realising this to a sufficient extent to consider your actions in context prior to acting. Hey, I still fuck this up, it’s okay to fuck up. It’s not okay to pretend the fuck up is someone else’s fault.

I have also known people who avoid explicitly asking about what’s going on because they’re too shy/repressed/etc. to actually verbalize anything about sex. I have come to the conclusion that if you are too shy to talk about what you’re doing even in roundabout terms, you’re not emotionally ready to be doing those things with that person either.

Speaking of implied consent, I just started listening to the “Paging Dr. Nerdlove” podcast this week. One episode is on how not to be creepy, and there was a discussion about appropriate and inappropriate touching. Pertinent to this discussion was that Dr. Nerdlove gave a very authoritative-sounding list of body parts from least to most intimate (in terms of if you touch someone else there how they will interpret it), and his guest on the show (a woman) immediately disagreed with him on the order. So yeah, even if you *think* a particular touch may be ok, and EVEN if the other person is ok with you touching some parts, they could well have a vastly different viewpoint regarding the place you’re trying to touch.

the first impression I got about the “consent would ruin the moment” thing, when the bar location was added, was that it was the equivalent of some guy saying it would ruin his fun if he had to ask the waitress before grabbing her ass.

If OTOH, it’s something like directly asking consent when having a conversation with someone at a bar would “ruin the moment”, then yeah, that’s correct.

it would “ruin the moment” because the other person in the conversation would realize you are incapable of having a normal conversation where consents are actually involved IN the discussion itself.

it just strikes me as an argument made by someone who actually doesn’t date.

…Pertinent to this discussion was that Dr. Nerdlove gave a very authoritative-sounding list of body parts from least to most intimate (in terms of if you touch someone else there how they will interpret it)…

Perhaps that was just the first of 7 billion lists he was going to read out? (Along with various levels of permission granted to certain categories of intimates, friends, acquaintances, and strangers.)

The idea that such a universal list exists is just incredibly self-centred at best, dangerous at worst.

Bernard,
It was in terms of trying to describe generally-held social cues, so wasn’t too bad in concept (like “touching on the shoulder isn’t as intimate as grabbing the hand, so don’t grab someone’s hand as a first gesture”), but yeah, he went a bit too far into his own ideas on it there. But I would recommend that particular episode for guidelines in general, because it was a good primer on what body language means “stop it and move away now”, and how much personal space to be sure you grant, and how not to hover, etc.

Peterhearn disingenuously pining for yestermonth, when we all got along with Tfoot in Perfect Harmony.
Nohellbelowus being the creepy asshole that we all know he is.
Torish dismissing everything as childish drama while behaving as childishly, repetitiously, and idiotically as xe could manage.
Scienceavenger whining that every comment thread doesn’t begin with a long sequence of “Introduction to Commonly Talked About Topic 101” comments before we actually start talking amongst ourselves.
And finally, poiqui, who insists that the phrase “obtaining consent would ruin the moment” is only relevant to leg-gnawing, no more and no less, and we all so unfair for assuming that a statement presented as a general principle could be applied to anything other than leg gnawing.

carlie,
I know that many people benefit from those types of primer for various reasons, and I know that there are some generally held social cues, but unless the advice started with an appropriate and careful discussion of consent and the diversity of personal boundaries, then it was poorly delivered.

I should have noted above (and therefore qualified my remarks) that I haven’t listened to the podcast. I may therefore be entirely wide of the mark.

Certainly, there is a wider tendency to try to construct general rules (rather than qualified guidance) for appropriate social interactions which cast the attention-giver as sole arbiter of whether to proceed. The perception that such rules exist (and therefore the desire to impose them accordingly) is part of the problem we find ourselves dealing with here.

You articulated what had been worrying me about this conversation as well. Even among intimates, without real trust, understanding and communication, implied consent is a dangerous and entirely avoidable thing. Nothing is ruined by obtaining explicitly what you believe has been implied implicitly.

Unless you prioritize your own desires over the person with whom you desire to be intimate, of course.

And finally, poiqui, who insists that the phrase “obtaining consent would ruin the moment” is only relevant to leg-gnawing, no more and no less, and we all so unfair for assuming that a statement presented as a general principle could be applied to anything other than leg gnawing.

Thunderf00t needs to be presented with as many legs to gnaw as possible. Ideally, every time he opens his mouth any number of someones should fill it with a few swiftly placed feet.

You mentioned Tfoot before I mentioned jiggling tits. Are you now claiming to have presciently provided a counter example to something I was saying to Illuminata?

Can you grasp that someone in a conversation that is with many people might not be talking to you at all, let alone about that which you wish to talk about?

Really this is all you need to say : “I, Louis, do not understand the difference between bringing something up and using something as an example to illustrate a point, furthermore I do not wish to discuss your arguments, because i’m a wuss”.

If you don’t want to talk about it, fine. Lets not pretend that you’ve actually had relevant counter-points though.

Really this is all you need to say : “I, Louis, do not understand the difference between bringing something up and using something as an example to illustrate a point, furthermore I do not wish to discuss your arguments, because i’m a wuss”.

You can’t behave like that and also expect the rest of us to take our time to carefully address your arguments.

I’ll admit. I am a bit. Only because he prefers to talk about the meta-issues in bringing up a subject rather than the subjects themselves. He brings up objections that are worthless and expects me to take them super seriously.

Well, since you used the term strawman, we can assume you think of yourself as somewhat of a rational person.

If you are one, you’d know the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your initial claim.

So, hop the fuck to it.

Which one?

Refer to my comment at 151. The burden of proof still lies with the people claiming that those two scenarios are equivalent and that thunderf00ts and the emailers position on it is inherently ridiculous.

Christ on a crutch, can you fucking people not follow a line of thought?

You: We do live in societies where men bear the responsibility of making a move when women give reasonable signals that they’d like a move to be made.

Me (FUCKING QUOTING YOU): You know that being this fucking wrong about human interaction marks you as incapable of discussing this issue whatsoever, right?

You (QUOTING ME): Thats a grand assertion. I assume that you can back it up somehow?

Since you quoted me in your response, you seem to have a vague idea of how blockquote works, so let me ask you again: which fucking initial claim of yours do you fucking think I’m telling you the burden is upon you to fucking demonstrate?

I must have just encountered an unbroken string over 30 years of dating of women who didn’t feel it was my responsibility to make moves on them.

If Thunderf00t’s one photo of leg-gnawing serves as any useful anecdote whatsoever, then I don’t mind sharing that in at least 50% of my relationships with women (let’s set that total number just shy of twenty, counting very short-term ones (for full disclosure, I tend towards long-term serial monogamy and have never had a one night stand)), they’ve made the first move.

That’s over the course of a quarter of a century, and I’ve dated outside my age, so we’re talking at least a couple of generations over a few decades, starting in the late 80s/early 90s.

And I was a fairly awkward weirdo up until, er, uh…

So I dispute the claim that men bear this responsibility.

I’d like to ask some of the women in this thread who haven’t already responded, if they feel comfortable doing so:

Do you sit back and bat your eyes, waiting for a bold man to alpha up and ask you out?

Brownian:
Not only did I ask my husband out, I also asked him to marry me. (Not like on one knee and pop the question, but more like instigated the conversation were we both agreed that we wanted to be married). What can I say? I’m impatient, so if I want something, I’m gonna ask right away.

You are free to choose who you respond to, but others will judge your persona/personality not only from the quality of your answers but also which points you choose to address.

First off, I don’t much care how a bunch of pseudonymous internet people judge my persona/personality. Second, i am willing to discuss the issues here. I’m just not going to put up with evasion.

So lets try to address the “issues” as I find them. This probably won’t be in chronological order, and I probably won’t have the ability to respond to them all due to my limitations as a human being.

Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
7 September 2012 at 9:47 am
Anything to do with TF is irrelevant. You know that. Hypotheticals are also irrelevant, unless you look at all the underlying presumptions, including male privilege, boyz will be boyz idiocy, women ask for it, etc. All sexist paradigms, designed to keep women treated as less than equals.

The issue is implied consent. Hypotheticals are not irrelevant when used to illustrate larger issues. They are a tool to be used when appropriate. This is not about “boyz will be boyz” or accepting some sexist paradigm. Its about recognising the difference between implied consent and genuine harassment. As i’ve said though, NerdOfRedhead could be a computer program, at least s/he could be easily replaced with one.

Brownian:

Agreed.

If you’re looking around the bar, trying to suss out whose actually giving you super secret come-hither-and-make-the-first-move looks, you’re doing it very wrong.

Try being less of a repulsive, predatory human being. See where that takes you.

Great argument here, sitting and flirting with somebody makes you a repulsive predator. Who knew?

Yourself:

Certainly, there is a wider tendency to try to construct general rules (rather than qualified guidance) for appropriate social interactions which cast the attention-giver as sole arbiter of whether to proceed. The perception that such rules exist (and therefore the desire to impose them accordingly) is part of the problem we find ourselves dealing with here.

I think we might be on the same page, but I found this slightly ambiguous.

carlie
7 September 2012 at 10:01 am
Speaking of implied consent, I just started listening to the “Paging Dr. Nerdlove” podcast this week. One episode is on how not to be creepy, and there was a discussion about appropriate and inappropriate touching. Pertinent to this discussion was that Dr. Nerdlove gave a very authoritative-sounding list of body parts from least to most intimate (in terms of if you touch someone else there how they will interpret it), and his guest on the show (a woman) immediately disagreed with him on the order. So yeah, even if you *think* a particular touch may be ok, and EVEN if the other person is ok with you touching some parts, they could well have a vastly different viewpoint regarding the place you’re trying to touch.

I haven’t heard this podcast. I would say though that any topic that even involves “appropriate touching” runs counter to the idea of many on this blog that all touching is by definition inappropriate without explicit consent.

This from poiqui at #179 got missed under the rest of their bullshit: (bolds mine)

Of course the issue of implied consent is a difficult one, I can understand why you’d rather argue against mythical creatures who do not think that any type of consent is required for sexual intercourse.

Who’s living in a fantasy world now? That’s blatant ignorance of how rape works or what rape even IS. Recall that some 6-8% of men will SELF-REPORT having raped or assaulted women BECAUSE they don’t think consent is required. They think rape only means cackling strangers lurking in the bushes, so because they rape acquaintances, it doesn’t count.

And they think ALL men feel the same way. See above, and follow-up post Predator Redux; and this from commenter hypatiasdaughter:

Several years back, a news program did a show about “date rape” drugs, where they interviewed guys who used it. Sitting in public bars, they said things like “Yeah, sure I slip it into drinks. It ain’t rape if she doesn’t say “No” (because she is drugged into semi-consciousness).” and “All guys do stuff like that or would if they could get their hands on it.”
The last. These guys create a social and legals scenario in their own minds that says they aren’t doing anything wrong because EVERY man would do the same thing.

I’ve always and will always feel a bit weird, but I never really associated with geeks or nerds to the exclusion of anyone else, which is probably one of the reasons I don’t feel like every other dorky atheist is automatically a potential ally.

But I’d only had a few relationships until the age of 29, including one non-continuous one that spanned a decade, so I suppose I saw myself as a bit awkward until around thirty, when I found myself single for the first time after many years. I had a lot of learning to do.

I was an ass at times, and I hurt some people emotionally, but never because I was too aggressive or imposed myself when it wasn’t wanted.

If you’re looking around the bar, trying to suss out whose actually giving you super secret come-hither-and-make-the-first-move looks, you’re doing it very wrong.

Try being less of a repulsive, predatory human being. See where that takes you.

Great argument here, sitting and flirting with somebody makes you a repulsive predator. Who knew?

Sitting and flirting with someone is not the same as acting as if “[w]e do live in societies where men bear the responsibility of making a move when women give reasonable signals that they’d like a move to be made”, you fucking lying piece of shit. Do not lie to me again, or I’ll be forced to stop treating you nicely.

But back to your original claim, fuckbag.

You wrote this:

We do live in societies where men bear the responsibility of making a move when women give reasonable signals that they’d like a move to be made.

I’m going to post the same comment I recently posted on Ophelia’s thread; it was bafflingly misunderstood, so I will clarify.

“When I read about this situation, I thought about a line from an article Rinku Sen wrote after the shooting at the Sikh Temple, which is applicable here: “White men seem to be in deep crisis, and white people would do well to deal with it, as Tim Wise points out again and again. I implore of my white friends, when your nutty uncle or classmate goes off about some set of foreigners, you must make a fuss, cause a family crisis, become unpopular, speak up. We cannot do this for you.” http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/08/how_long_before_islamophobias_toxic_spread_destroys_america.html”

This was addressed to white allies of racial justice, urging them to speak against everyday racism, but it equally applies to allies of women who are constantly victims of misogyny.

. Hypotheticals are not irrelevant when used to illustrate larger issues. They are a tool to be used when appropriate.

Hypotheticals are only relevant if they are thoroughly grounded in reality, using common definitons of things like harrasssment, assault, implied consent, explicit consent, etc. And we have had those dialogs here since elevatorgate almost weekly. You will bring nothing new to the table. I will laugh at your attempts to weasel on definitions, set up irrational and irrelevant situations, etc. You have nothing new, and would admit it if you were realistic.

Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
7 September 2012 at 11:46 am
. Hypotheticals are not irrelevant when used to illustrate larger issues. They are a tool to be used when appropriate.

Hypotheticals are only relevant if they are thoroughly grounded in reality, using common definitons of things like harrasssment, assault, implied consent, explicit consent, etc. And we have had those dialogs here since elevatorgate almost weekly. You will bring nothing new to the table. I will laugh at your attempts to weasel on definitions, set up irrational and irrelevant situations, etc. You have nothing new, and would admit it if you were realistic.

Did you get a new programmer to add some lines in. What is it you usually say, *POOF* your OPINION is just that and can be readily dismissed as blah blah blah. Something like that anyway.

Giliell @144, that sounds like a pretty nasty experience. I think the contrast between your experience and mine is a pretty good illustration of the difference between a situation where it’s considered important to ensure that everybody is having fun and consenting, and a situation where only one party’s entertainment is prioritized and anyone who objects is ruining the moment or being a crybaby.

I just don’t understand these trolls who get all up in arms over the mere suggestion that maybe it might be a good idea to be just ever so slightly more careful about obtaining consent, and to be supportive of people’s attempts to establish their own boundaries. It’s one thing to maybe have some disagreement about the exact best methods of doing so, but it’s another thing entirely to feel outraged and threatened about the fact that we’re even having the conversation.

He is simply making the point that obtaining consent would ruin the moment.

*Sarcasm*

Consent? Pah! What is a woman’s bodily autonomy set against the importance of the moment? Next you’ll be saying that women can make their own decisions about whom they wish to sleep with, and that talking to their breasts rather than their faces is offensive and objectifying or some other such feminazi propaganda targeted at the oppression of Reel Menz(TM). I mean, what about the needs of teh menz? And their pee-pees? Their all-important, needy pee-pees…?

*/Sarcasm*

This, right here, is why I despise all the misogynist arseholes among the atheist/skeptical community.

It takes someone who is at best titanically oblivious, and at worst a predatory rapist-in-waiting, to hold such an opinion.

In the OP PZ talks about the growing shame people feel when associating with the atheist/skeptical movement, and with attitudes like this, it is no surprise that people are finding the label increasingly toxic.

I think we are probably better off forging ahead with pairing progressive ideals with godlessness through atheism+, so that we can cut all these bigots loose at the first opportunity. They don’t believe in god, so they are entitled to call themsleves atheists, but that means that we need a phrase that conveys that the progressive godless, while also having no time for imaginary sky fairies ands other assorted woo, share nothing else in common with these misogynist gits.

We do live in societies where men bear the responsibility of making a move when women give reasonable signals that they’d like a move to be made.

Really? This is a responsibility? So let’s say that you’re a man in a committed and monogamous relationship. There is another woman who is “giving reasonable signals that they’d like you to make a move on them.” Are you therefore obligated to fulfill your responsibility? When your committed and monogamous partner comes back from using the restroom to see you “making a move” on this other woman, are you able to quell their outrage and hurt by saying that you were simply fulfilling your societal responsibility, since you are a man and you live in this society?

No? Then isn’t the word “responsibility” a stupid fucking word to use in an already stupid fucking assertion?

I think i’ve mentioned your hitting people scenario in the same sentence as the “jiggling tits” scenario that Louis presented. So i’ll say to you what I said to him, you are being ridiculous and not attempting to compare like with like.

I think we are probably better off forging ahead with pairing progressive ideals with godlessness through atheism+, so that we can cut all these bigots loose at the first opportunity.

It’s fascinating to me how these Whinay Ass Bigot Trolls have been telling women – well, non-desperate-for-male-approval women anyway – to get out of THEIR movement.

Eventually, A+ is born and that’s exactly what happens. The Uppity Bitches(tm) leave.

And what happens? The Whiny Ass Bigot Trolls endleslly fucking whine about ‘divisiveness’ or make up ridiculous lies comparaing A+ to “teabaggerism”. Because who’s the first group of people that come to mind when you hear the phrase “social justice” – TOTALLY teabaggers, amirite?

poiqui – stop being a ridiculous sniveling coward. You said horseplay in a bar doesn’t require consent. Therefore, I can do to you in a bar whatever I want and you can’t complain. how about we change ‘repeatedly punching you in the face’ with repeatedly grabbing your ass? Better, chickenshit?

is it fun being hoisted on your own petard, but too cowardly to admit it? You clearly have practice at it.

We do live in societies where men bear the responsibility of making a move when women give reasonable signals that they’d like a move to be made.

Are you saying that women never make the first move? That they are somehow incapable? Or are you simply referencing a general stereotype in society – one that is madated by outmoded and misogynistic tropes about the ‘proper’ place of women and their ‘correct’ role in relationships?

If you argue the former, you are demonstrably wrong; there are plenty of women who are quite prepared to take the initiative in forming relationships, as other posters have noted upthread. If you argue the latter, then why should we be beholden to such ludicrous and restrictive gender norms? Why shouldn’t we work to consign such toxic attitudes to the rubbish tip of history where they belong?

poiqui is doing everything in hir power to avoid having to defend this claim:

We do live in societies where men bear the responsibility of making a move when women give reasonable signals that they’d like a move to be made.

Alright, enough fun. Perhaps i’ve missed it but I don’t think you have actually offered an argument against this claim. I mean the best you could probably do is add a “usually” in there, and that is fair enough.

It’s fascinating to me how these Whinay Ass Bigot Trolls have been telling women – well, non-desperate-for-male-approval women anyway – to get out of THEIR movement.

And don’t forget that they also like to define the notional ‘limits’ of ‘their’ movement to exclude important issues of social justice in favour of droning on about the glaringly self-evident non-existance of bigfoot. See, apparently saying that bigfoot doesn’t exist and laughing at creationists is totes important, but dealing with the injustices and bigotries that affect real people’s lives everyday – bigotries that are being spewed by these self-declared ‘skeptics’ with every greater virtriol and frequency – is supposedly ‘divisive’, ‘harmful to the cause’ and just an irrelevant ‘distraction’.

Who the fictional hell-trope do they think they are to tell those of us who aren’t woman hating arsehats what consitutes an ‘acceptable’ topic of atheist conversation?

Eventually, A+ is born and that’s exactly what happens. The Uppity Bitches(tm) leave.

And what happens? The Whiny Ass Bigot Trolls endleslly fucking whine about ‘divisiveness’ or make up ridiculous lies comparaing A+ to “teabaggerism”. Because who’s the first group of people that come to mind when you hear the phrase “social justice” – TOTALLY teabaggers, amirite?

Haven’t you heard?

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
And progressive feminism is far right religious extremism – at least it is if you are a misogynist idiot.

make up your tiny, empty little minds, Whiny Ass Bigot Trolls.

or better yet, just go away.

I think that, like most infestations of vermin, we can’t expect the MRAs, PUAs and assorted other misogynist trolls to leave voluntarily…

We need a means to ‘encourage’ them…

Has anyone got a good formula for Extra Strength Troll-Be-Gone? Preferably containing high concentrations of napalm?

I think we are probably better off forging ahead with pairing progressive ideals with godlessness through atheism+, so that we can cut all these bigots loose at the first opportunity.

The one problem with this is that the regressive bigots are trying to sneak into A+ through any backdoor they can find. I’ve had to call out one conservative for abstractly bloviating about ‘will I be accepted by all these librulz’ rather than having the discussion, and I’ve found myself calling out neoliberal theology (read: attempt to nail jello to a wall) in pretty well every thread relating to economic security or classism.

Poiqui has been trolling since the start. It’s just a fuckwit. It will burn out and go away.

You say this as if I don’t know.

I’m not writing for its benefit. I’m writing so that any other fucking piece of shit coward troll shows up and starts whining I can point to every instance in which poiqui did everything in hir power to avoid having to defend this claim:

We do live in societies where men bear the responsibility of making a move when women give reasonable signals that they’d like a move to be made.

I’d be vaguely curious to see what kind of research exists on the point (who makes first move, sex of in humans), come to think of it. Did a few quick obvious searches myself through Google Scholar, but not knowing the field enough, I really didn’t have a real clear idea where to begin or how to interpret what came out of my few first stabs.

I can say anecdotally from my own experience it runs something like 2:1 in favour of the woman in question doing so, if we’re going to drill right down to when one heads to bed together (TMI? Too bad). No idea how typical that is, tho’.

One particular question that occurs to me is: how culturally determined would it actually be? I wouldn’t really be surprised to find either, come to think of it. For all this assumption it’s the guy is expected to indicate he’d like to move things to the horizontal, it could well be this is a very loose traditional expectation, not really much honoured in practice–either lately or even ever. And even that it might turn out to be more universal than anyone might expect. But honestly, like I said: I wouldn’t be that surprised either way.

It’s kinda sideways to this whole damned thing anyway, the way I see it, mind. I’m curious to know, but really, even if the expectation really is on one partner or the other to make that move, you still don’t move without clear permission. You don’t get to whinge that oh, it’s so haaaard being the guy, having to do that bit, so somehow I figure I’d rather breeze through without asking than make properly sure we really both want to be here and really both want this.

I expect it’s been said somewhere in this already at least once, but I really do think a big part of this is sexual aggressors hoping somehow just forcing the issue without asking will get them what they want more often. The trouble with them asking is, hell, that still leaves ‘no’ as too definite a possibility, and they’re hoping to get away without doing so. They’re counting by not asking on a kind of coercive psychology working in which the partner just plays along rather than rocking the boat, since a lot of people–and women especially–don’t like conflict, and may just do so. Saying ‘no’ when you’re asked politely isn’t so hard. Saying ‘get the fuck off me; this is not what I want’, that’s harder, and makes so much a bigger stink.

The one problem with this is that the regressive bigots are trying to sneak into A+ through any backdoor they can find. I’ve had to call out one conservative for abstractly bloviating about ‘will I be accepted by all these librulz’ rather than having the discussion, and I’ve found myself calling out neoliberal theology (read: attempt to nail jello to a wall) in pretty well every thread relating to economic security or classism.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised – it is clearly altogether too much to ask that these bigoted jerks should be consistent or honest enough to actually stay away from a movement they desperately try to claim is pointless.

This is all about trolling progressives, and in particular progressive women, because they can, and they will go wherever we go in order to do it.

My personal experience tells me that this is true*. I guess maybe they don’t approach you so much.

Work on the attitude and you might find some willing to bear the onerous responsibility of “the first move”.

*As much as you all may be surprised, I’m not even handsome. Or in shape. Or rich. Or socially graceful. Or fashionable. Or good-smelling. I’m left with the opinion that people must approach other people all the time for no good fucking reason at all.

*As much as you all may be surprised, I’m not even handsome. Or in shape. Or rich. Or socially graceful. Or fashionable. Or good-smelling. I’m left with the opinion that people must approach other people all the time for no good fucking reason at all.

You really don’t need to convince me that you have no redeemable qualities. I don’t care.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised – it is clearly altogether too much to ask that these bigoted jerks should be consistent or honest enough to actually stay away from a movement they desperately try to claim is pointless.

This is all about trolling progressives, and in particular progressive women, because they can, and they will go wherever we go in order to do it.

Sorry, I was unclear. I didn’t mean to say that these are the same people; I cannot be sure if they are.

What I meant to say was that neoliberals and conservatives are, by being regressive bigots wrt classism, no less regressive bigots than these misogynist trolls. They’re just still at the stage where they can dump their sophisticated bigotry, because hardly anyone (mostly due to ignorance; there’s actually also a Marxist theologian in there and I’m loathe to go after them because I know even less about Marxism than I do neoliberalism) is calling them out properly on it.

I haven’t heard this podcast. I would say though that any topic that even involves “appropriate touching” runs counter to the idea of many on this blog that all touching is by definition inappropriate without explicit consent.

Contact with consent IS appropriate touching. But of course you know that, you’re just trying to be an ass. The point was that even when consensual, for those who are socially impaired, that a “yes” to one thing does not mean a “yes” to other things, and the suggestion was how to have the best odds that you don’t accidentally cross that line. In fact, I’m surprised that you brought it up, because the only point to me making it was that it was an example showing that there is no universal standard of what constitutes consent and in what ways, counter to what you’re trying to assert.

something else I find fascinating in a that’s-totally-no-surprising sort of way is that Whiny Ass Bigot Trolls – who “usually” (HAHA) first pretend to be totally not misogynists/sexists – are whining the loudest about Carrier’s posts about A+.

So, they are focusing on the words of a man (Carrier) who is not among those who started A+ and completely ignoring the words of the woman (McCreight) who DID start the movement and publically disagreed with Carrier.

Chickenshit, you really don’t need to convince us that you have no redeemable qualities. We are very well aware of that fact. Now, “usually” run along and “usually” enjoy “usually” getting ignored by women “usually”.

Why would you even think this would affect me? How fucking pathetic can you get?

Popo:

It does affect you though doesn’t it. The fact that you’ve put so much into your persona. The fact that you basically live on this website.

Translation: Pretty fucking pathetic.

It appears that popo is trying to milk Brownian of his tears by using insults that are so fucking poorly aimed that you’d be forgiven for mistaking popo for a Stormtrooper. He is clearly invested in plain ol’ trolling, rather than actually trying to deal with matters of fact. Surprise surprise!

Lol someones attempting a Hannible lecture. If I recall the last time that happened the troll wound up screaming cursing and claiming we were so mean he was considering suicide while begging to be banned. It doesn’t work

What I meant to say was that neoliberals and conservatives are, by being regressive bigots wrt classism, no less regressive bigots than these misogynist trolls. They’re just still at the stage where they can dump their sophisticated bigotry, because hardly anyone (mostly due to ignorance; there’s actually also a Marxist theologian in there and I’m loathe to go after them because I know even less about Marxism than I do neoliberalism) is calling them out properly on it.

Bye bye idiots. Keep doubling down on the insanity. Pat each other on the backs twice as hard or whatever. Get off the computer once in a while. :)

Number of posts in this thread by poiqui: 33.
Number of posts since poiqui’s first until final: 183
Percent of posts that have been poiqui’s since arrival: 18%
Time of poiqui’s first post: 5:32
Time of poiqui’s final post: 1:07
Total time of poiqui posting: 7 hours 35 minutes.
Rate of posting: Roughly 1 post every thirty minutes.

I think popo is just sad because no-one will give him a pat on the back for being such a dumbass.

something else I find fascinating in a that’s-totally-no-surprising sort of way is that Whiny Ass Bigot Trolls – who “usually” (HAHA) first pretend to be totally not misogynists/sexists – are whining the loudest about Carrier’s posts about A+.

They always like to claim that they aren’t misogynists – that it is only the unreasonable ‘feminazis’ who label them as such.

*Sarcasm*

I mean, isn’t it just awful how those vicious, castrating feminist hellions respond to a little harmless dehumanisation – why, it is almost as if they think that the mere bodily autonomy and personhood of women is more important than precious man fee-fees, and we can’t have that, can we…?

*/Sarcasm*

So, they are focusing on the words of a man (Carrier) who is not among those who started A+ and completely ignoring the words of the woman (McCreight) who DID start the movement and publically disagreed with Carrier.

but they’re not sexists! on no!

Typical – these arseholes always ignore the fact that women exist when they aren’t hurling bigoted invective at them.

Several times I have found sexist prats responding to me while ignoring the (often far better written and conceived) posts of lady pharyngulites, probably due to my masculine nym. This makes me feel bad, because I know that I am enabling them in their misogyny by engaging with them, when I should be yelling at them “answer the women, you disgustingly misogynist bounder*, or may Cthulhu feast on what passes for your brain for all eternity**!”

Bye bye idiots. Keep doubling down on the insanity. Pat each other on the backs twice as hard or whatever. Get off the computer once in a while.

I take it I am not going to get an answer to the questions I posed @ 273, then?

Are you saying that women never make the first move? That they are somehow incapable? Or are you simply referencing a general stereotype in society – one that is madated by outmoded and misogynistic tropes about the ‘proper’ place of women and their ‘correct’ role in relationships?

If you argue the former, you are demonstrably wrong; there are plenty of women who are quite prepared to take the initiative in forming relationships, as other posters have noted upthread. If you argue the latter, then why should we be beholden to such ludicrous and restrictive gender norms? Why shouldn’t we work to consign such toxic attitudes to the rubbish tip of history where they belong?

Why, it is almost as though poiqui doesn’t have any answers, or is afraid that if xe is forced to defend hir position, xe will dig hirself even deeper into that impressive hole of hirs.

Thank you, thank you. All in a day’s work for one those there *shudder* *wretch* Computer Users. I just hope that non-Computer Users that access the internet entirely through sheer force of will might spare me my much deserved mockery.

Joe has got a point. Obtaining consent can be extremly ruinous, particularly when the bitch says no. Of course you could follow the “no means yes” philosphy but then sometimes she can be real pain in arse and call the cops. Talking of which my state supplied roommate is here and he has his own philosphy when it comes to consent.

The link to the BBC article was tweeted WikiLeaks without any indication that it was an old article. There is some suggestion that Assange himself is the source of WikiLeaks tweets – I haven’t seen any information to support that. However, this is certainly a case of cultivating misinformation, whether by creating the impression that it current news, or by drawing attention to a rather irrelevant aspect of procedure earlier in the case.

And I see poiqui seems to have melted down. Well, I did try to to give them chance to make a contribution (or enough rope to hang themselves, whichever way you see it).

So, they are focusing on the words of a man (Carrier) who is not among those who started A+ and completely ignoring the words of the woman (McCreight) who DID start the movement and publically disagreed with Carrier.

Who’s next?
Oh I’ll bite but only since poqoui was making an effort to engage and was shouted down until he got tired of it. You keep repeating a Fairly uncontroversial statement like men bear the responsibility of making the first move as if that is some kind of outrageous misogynist myth that needsa raft of studies to back it up. Lots of things dont need studies to back them up. Women tend to wear skirts more than men (even in scotland) might be one.
Its not a statement of how things should be or even that thing are always that way (really the straw manning was atrociously lazy) but as a general statement of social reality for most people in western society its undeniably true among most classes and cultures. Indeed a central reason its not as true as it once was as a generality are the victories of the struggles for womens rights over the past hundred years or so. Indeed another generality is the more oppressed women are in a society the less they have the ability to choose their partners. So its hardly suprising that even in the relatively liberated western world the cultural norm is still for the man to make the first move.
Now maybe you guys live in a different social reality. I’ve really don’t know what it must be like to have so much time on my hands to be able to spend all day arguing stuff on the internet. The regular posters here clearly cant have full time jobs so perhaps in whatever academic/artistic/sub-culture milieu things are different. Good for you, really. In the world the rest of us live in however even feminists I know usually wait for the guy to make the first move becuase they still live in a society where women are shamed for being “sluts” and the’re not immune to those pressures by virtue of their strong political and social beliefs.
And this brings me back to PZ’s quote about “obtaining consent would ruin the moment”. I dont see a link to the original discussion and if it was in the context of the misogynist abuse being hurled at people like jen and rebecca I guess you could read it like the guy didnt actually think you needed to obtain consent. However if you take it within the context of some of posters here who seem to insist VERBAL consent is absolutely a precondition then it could well mean “obtaining VERBAL consent could ruin the moment” Which can be true. Some people dont like to talk or the person they’re with to talk when they’re intimate. Particularly when they’re young inexperienced, nervous and still fighting feelings of shame for “sinning”.
VERBAL consent is not always necessary because human communication consists of a lot more than speech. For most people its easy to tell when intimate whether someone is enthusiastic or not without speaking. Its also easy to tell if someone is reluctant. It can be less easy to tell what the reasons for that reluctance are and then yes verbal consent would be pretty important. Not necessarily essential as it depends on the context
What several people here have said is that VERBAL consent is always necessary “just in case” implying one might accidentally rape somebody. Yet as the study Esteleth @346 quotes most rapes are not accidental.
So I guess youre trying to impose a cultural norm where VERBAL consent is always required for sexual relations. However as Esteleth study shows this would not really affect the number of rapes so whats the point?

poqoui was only pretending to engage. If was was engaging, it would have answered the question Brownian repeatedly asked. QED. It was just trolling, like most MRA fuckwits. Nothing but OPINION and attitude, no evidence. Just like more recent posters.

You keep repeating a Fairly uncontroversial statement like men bear the responsibility of making the first move as if that is some kind of outrageous misogynist myth that needsa raft of studies to back it up. Lots of things dont need studies to back them up. Women tend to wear skirts more than men (even in scotland) might be one.

Many people here WERE victims of harassment, assault and rape. Why don’t you take your high horse and shove it up your nostril, for starters?

Apart from that, you seem to have built quite the army of strawmen and wringed hands here. Why the fuck do you want to bring up the cultural expectation of men being the active party, if not to imply the “it was always that way” argument? You see, a man (who isn’t an asshat or a predator) can realize that the current situation sucks for women and take a small step to help. Cultural expectations be damned. The Relationship Police won’t arrest you for violating dating norms, FFS.

Verbal consent isn’t necessary, but far too often non-verbal consent is implied when it’s not achieved. Since you can never have too much consent, why not use your fucking mouth? Reducing the ambiguity of body language is what verbal communication was made for.

The Mythcommunication article I posted at #346 does not have the conclusion, “well, men will ignore it when women say no anyway, so why bother?”

Seriously, did you actually suggest that?!

The conclusion, which fits in with the rest of the argument presented over at that blog is summed up in the TITLE of the blog: Yes Means Yes.

At the moment, the language of consent is bound up in a different statement, the opposite statement in fact: “no means no.”

Well, “no means no” is a decent concept, in and of it self. “If a woman says no, you stop.” “If the person you are trying to sex up objects, then you stop.” “No does not mean maybe, if you ask again, it means no.”

But here’s the problem, and why the fine folks over at YMY posted the Mythcommunication article:

Because the language of consent is framed in the negative, badgering a woman into resignedly stopping her objection is not seen as coercion or rape, it is seen as sex and acceptable.

Because the language of consent is framed in the negative, women are seen as existing in a permanent state of consent, which must be affirmatively withheld in order for it to be rape.

Because the language of consent is framed in the negative, moronic statements about how “she didn’t seem that into it, but she never said no, so therefore it wasn’t rape” can be said.

Because the language of consent is framed in the negative, drugging a woman or deliberately getting a woman so drunk that she isn’t capable of saying no isn’t seen as “really” rape, it’s seen as sex and acceptable.

So, here’s what the people at YMY and their allies propose:

Turn it around. Make the language of consent a positive. Stop demanding that the person being pursued say “no” in the exact proper perfect manner that their pursuer will recognize, demand that the pursuer hear the word “yes”.

Presume that people are existing in a state of non-consent, which must be affirmatively countered for it to not be rape.

“She never SAID no!” Well, did she say “yes”?

“She was too drunk/stoned/drugged to say anything!” So she didn’t say “yes,” then? Oh, and how did she get so drunk/stoned/drugged?

Will this harsh the buzz of the PUA types and those who see sex as purely transactional, who go through life trying to carve as many notches onto their proverbial bedposts as possible, the opinion of the woman in question be damned? Will it dampen the mood of those people who see getting explicit consent as a “drag” or as “spoiling the mood?”

Yes. You fucking bet it will.

AND THAT’S A GOOD THING.

Because so long as sex as seen as a transaction, and something that men take from women, and something that women “owe” men, and as a goal that justifies the means, then rape will remain endemic, and women will not be free.

I didn’t bring up the issue of cultural expectation of men being the active party, I’m bringing attention to the fact that this social reality has been denied by many commenters here. Nor do I personally think this is always the way it was and I definitely don’t think its the way things should be. But in order to effect social change its necessary to recognise social reality. Incidentally I’m a big fan of the Ryan/Jetha book “sex at dawn” which makes some convincing arguments (and also a few poor arguments) that human social/sexual relations in the paleolithic period were more likely to be similar to bonobos rather than chimpanzees, eg matriarchal, more egalitarian with heterosexual and homosexual relations often used to defuse conflict.
I’m glad to see that unlike some posters here you don’t think verbal consent isn’t necessarily necessary and I agree its a good idea especially if theres any ambiguity or sensed reluctance by either party but even if it is possible to change this to the social norm (unlikely given that many of the proponents, unlike yourself, deny social reality) then it doesn’t look as if it will actually change the status of women or the number of rapes: as esteleth says miscommunication is not the problem, the problem is that the rapists don’t care whether consent is given or not.

Also I don’t think current thinking on the origin of language is that sexual communication was a primary driver. Bonobos certainly manage to enagage in all sorts of consensual sexual behaviours through gestural and other forms of communication.

@Esteleth
I understand there are implications to your article you didn’t necessarily think would give weight to arguments contrary to yours.
But as scientists know this is often what happens with evidence. Facts are stubborn things and don’t always align with our preconceived theoretical perspectives.
And I’m sorry ,you don’t have a monopoly on “fair use” of evidence. Nobody does.

If you’d poke around the YMY blog, GBD, you’d find that the authors do suggest fixes for the problem of rapists ignoring “no” signals – namely, that other men call out rapey statements made by men. They discuss the studies that show that while only a small proportion of men are rapists, these rapists over-estimate the number of rapists in the general population and draw social validation from this.

They also discuss how in the majority of rapes, the rapist went into a situation knowing exactly the script that governs what is and is not acceptable for women to do, and deliberately pushed the envelope until the woman was trapped – if she began to loudly protest, then she’d be shamed for not getting out earlier (as women are), if she didn’t, she’d be raped. Also, the majority of rapists have raped many times – and they’re willing to admit it, so long as you don’t use the “r” word.